If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Romney was a church... deacon? I don't recall. But he was working for the Church in an official capacity. The LDS actually owns a couple of insurance companies. So I would assume he's on that plan. I would be. Why are you turning this into some sort of attack?

I'm not turning it into any kind of attack. You're the one sounding like a less smart JimRob taking pot shots at Romney because he's mormon.

Catholic institutions have their own health care organizations too. They are leading the charge against the mandatory birth control regulations in Obama Care.

Other than to try and ding Romney on his religion was there some kind of point you're trying to make?

With the folks at MSNBC, it always seems to come back to race. Network host Ed Schultz failed to disappoint this morning when he appeared on Thomas Roberts's 11 a.m. Eastern MSNBC Live and suggested that racism was partly to blame for President Obama's weak performance in the debate (video follows page break):

Look, I certainly am not going to bail out on the effort of the progressive movement in this country. This just makes it a little heavier lift than it is right now. It was just very frustrating to watch a guy lie to the American people and not be counter-punched because we're afraid he's going to be called an angry black man. When I see the president, I don't see a black man. I see a president who has inherited an untenable position and turned it around to a great positive to where we are right now. He has brought it down to 8 percent unemployment without any help from the Republicans.

The very next hour, on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner, panelist Michael Eric Dyson similarly suggested that fear of being seen as an "angry black man" held Obama back from forcefully debating and possibly winning last night's contest.

You can have a free market- if you want to live under an aristocracy. Unbridled capitalism leads to monarchy. Monarchy leads to revolution. Lately, revolution takes the form of communism, theocratic dictatorship, or some sort of iron fist.

The US and Europe are headed for a new wave of National Socialism. Believe it. It will happen. And people will whine that "It's like the NAZI's" but it won't be like the NAZI's. It will be a galvanization of the Euro-Sphere (which includes far flung places like Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, US, Volkstaat, Israel, Kenya, and Canada) while eschewing the old fashioned definitions of race and nation. A master race defined by economics, culture, geographic strategy and utility rather than genealogy.

So what does the "master race defined by economics, culture, geographic strategy and utility" do with those who don't want to be part of that master race's Walden 2?

So you don't have any issues with a company employing 10 year olds to work putting together circuit boards for .50 an hour?

You of all people on this board are better than that to make a strawman argument like that. Me believing in a free market is not an acceptance of sweat houses, nor illegal practices of forced labor nor believing the mafia should take it over. This argument is no differetn than the one Novaheart has made in this thread that a free market somehow is a concept of the Aristocracy.

I can't sometimes believe I'm on a conservative board that thinks the government isn't overly involved in almost every aspect of the market today When Romney makes this statement, he is saying he is perfectly fine with the bailouts and Ben Bernake meddling in the economy. This is a far cry from "conservative" free market beliefs.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

A completely unregulated market is a Libertarian myth that cannot and has not ever existed in any country, it would mean the absolute absence of any governing body and even in a state of anarchy this does not truly exist, having your products stolen by roving bands is not a free market either.

The law is used to protect life, liberty and property. If it does that in a "limited government capacity" then everything you are fearful of is mitigated. The free exchange of goods and services under the protection that theft, murder and loss of a person's liberty will not be tolerated. That's the basis of what an American free market should look like.

Who said anything about anarchy? You did.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

I call bullshit.
Read my post above. If Laws protect these three things, then you cannot have aristocracy.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

You of all people on this board are better than that to make a strawman argument like that. Me believing in a free market is not an acceptance of sweat houses, nor illegal practices of forced labor nor believing the mafia should take it over. This argument is no differetn than the one Novaheart has made in this thread that a free market somehow is a concept of the Aristocracy.

I can't sometimes believe I'm on a conservative board that thinks the government isn't overly involved in almost every aspect of the market today When Romney makes this statement, he is saying he is perfectly fine with the bailouts and Ben Bernake meddling in the economy. This is a far cry from "conservative" free market beliefs.

Why is that a straw man argument. It is directly on topic. You know, I've learned that recently that people like to toss out that "your making a straw man argument" when they cannot refute the initial statement based on evidence at hand..

What you can't dispute is the fact that under a free market that revolved around the opening chapters of the industrial era when there were no regulations concerning child labor that the free market exploited children for financial gain. That is a fact and not a straw man.

Labor regulations came along forced industry against its will to operate more ethically when dealing with those people it employed.

Do I think that free market is over regulated. Yes I certainly do. I but by that same token I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. Some regulation is necessary to keep some people from taking advantage of others. Should industries be allowed to wantonly dump chemicals in rivers and pour pollutants into the air? With no regulation this would happen. How do I know this because companies get caught and fined every year for violating not only the unnecessary regulations but the necessary ones as well.

You seem not to understand that some people will do anything to make a profit no matter who gets hurt. This is not another straw man. This is another fact.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.